The 55th Amendment
To the Constitution for the united Republics of America
It is hereby declared without ambiguity that from this day forward the United States shall be recognized as a Religious nation. We are “ Endowed by our Creator” with the right to be free and nowhere does our Constitution say that we should live a “sustainable” existence, authorized by our government and as such, “Governments are instituted, (with God at the top), among men”, not the other way around. There shall never be a separation of our government or the American people from their Creator. It shall be further recognized that the order of Creation is:
1. God’s Laws and the Laws of Necessity
2. Natural Law
3. Government Statutes
This Amendment shall never be construed to violate our First Amendment protections against a government run church, nor shall this Amendment be construed as support for the same. There shall never be a one religion government edict attached to this article nor allowed by it.
The Legislatures of 3/4’s of the States shall be necessary to pass this article. Should any state Republic change or eliminate any of the original wording, their edit shall be construed as a NO vote and agreement of the 3/4’s ratio must be for the exact and original language in the article and all changes will remove approval and be counted as a NO vote.
I disagree with such a statement for the following reason:
Our forefathers, all of whom were religious men, would have put something like this in the constitution, declaration or articles should they have come to the conclusion that such a reference was appropriate (notice I don't say "necessary"). Such a religious reference is inappropriate because in government you can have no parameters on morals. Religion has its basis in personal morals. You cannot legislate morality.
This is why the founding fathers specifically stated that while they each had their moral compass in line with the Laws of God, that any Laws of Men must not be comingled. Why? Because the Law of God lies within the souls of men not on the floor of a legislative chamber to be voted upon. There is no voting or debate about God's Law. How can the two be construed in the same structure?
It rests upon the shoulders of those moral men that the people elect to represent them that the Laws of God and morality lie. It is from their minds, souls during the penning of Mans Law that the moral compass of Gods Law must direct them.
To put God's Law "on the books" would be to demean it to the same common status as Man's Law, open for reinterpretation and for debate. This is not possible.
Therefore, the only way to contruct and to implement any societal Law, it must be done by men of moral grounding, their souls steeped in the Law of God. It is from this grounding and basis that the Law of Man can come forth. This disengages the immediate desire and rapture of those that wish to advocate their particular flavor of God's Law. This allows those that follow their specific spiritual path to present to other men laws and ideas that not only conform to each of their moral status/understanding/desire, but if these ideas are truly something that do not disassociate, disenfranchise or alienate another group (which is what the specific religions do whether they say so or not) they will be recognized as such by their peers and agreed to as something positive for society as a whole.
Keith, I hope this shows that while I am not an advocate of a religious amendment, I am very much in favor of men of spiritual grounding and morals - typically (but not exclusively) on the Christian values that this country was founded upon - espressing their PERSONAL grounding in their representation of the people. Government cannot ever control the soul of man, nor can it attempt to legislate morality. All such attempts (taxes, etc..) have simply pushed the issue deeper into societies subconscious fabric attempting to treat the surface symptom instead of the cause. The main cause being the breakdown of the family unit and the disassociation of the individual's soul from its source - our Creator.
All the best,
Some interesting points here from both sides, however, I see our problem as not whether we are a religious nation but whether we are a slave nation where the rule of just laws has been totally abandoned in favor of public policy. The concept of living by that to which we set our hand and do no harm unto your brother, as well as the principle of 'quid pro quo', which were at the heart of the Common Law, are overshadowed by the requirement to be taxed and licensed for every human endeavor.
The U.S., a federal corporation posing as government, has been bankrupted by its owners the Rothschild/Vatican Mafia whereby the rule of law has been transformed into a gargantuan energy milking machine designed to enslave the population with thousands of greed inspired rules, regulations, codes, ordinances, and statutes posing as laws.
Every element of this system is based on the fact that this de-facto regime operates under the fraudulent contentions that we, the people have agreed to a fiduciary relationship with Govco's created U.S. citizens, the straw men attached to each of us upon registration of birth. This is the crux of our problem. It is absolute fraud because Govco has never revealed that its only jurisdiction is the commercial activity of its legal fiction straw men that the public has been induced by fraud to believe said all caps name is actually them.
It is agreed that you cannot legislate morality but given the reins of power you can impose an immorality on the general public through media that guarantees a steady stream of policy violations that Govco can use to fund its spending through the bonding of all who are charged with violating all these unlawful victimless so-called crimes.
Subject to paragraph (2), any individual who is (A) a duly ordained, commissioned, or licensed minister of a church or a member of a religious order (other than a member of a religious order who has taken a vow of poverty as a member of such order) or (B) a Christian Science practitioner, upon filing an application (in such form and manner, and with such official, as may be prescribed by regulations made under this chapter) together with a statement that either he is conscientiously opposed to, or because of religious principles he is opposed to, the acceptance (with respect to services performed by him as such minister, member, or practitioner) of any public insurance which makes payments in the event of death, disability, old age, or retirement or makes payments toward the cost of, or provides services for, medical care (including the benefits of any insurance system established by the Social Security Act) and, in the case of an individual described in subparagraph (A), that he has informed the ordaining, commissioning, or licensing body of the church or order that he is opposed to such insurance, shall receive an exemption from the tax imposed by this chapter with respect to services performed by him as such minister, member, or practitioner. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, an exemption may not be granted to an individual under this subsection if he had filed an effective waiver certificate under this section as it was in effect before its amendment in 1967.
The Secretary may approve an application for an exemption filed pursuant to paragraph (1) only if the Secretary has verified that the individual applying for the exemption is aware of the grounds on which the individual may receive an exemption pursuant to this subsection and that the individual seeks exemption on such grounds. The Secretary (or the Commissioner of Social Security under an agreement with the Secretary) shall make such verification by such means as prescribed in regulations.
(g) Members of certain religious faiths
That's all well and good, but how does one prove that the straw man belongs to some religious sect and why would that even be necessary? The real issue here as it pertains to income taxes [State and federal] is that the living man opted to be the fiduciary for the all caps NAME legal fiction, straw man, taxpayer.
That straw man has zero contemplation of religion, morality, or anything else so why fall for their bull shit about declaring that fiction to be in some religious order. You, the living man, signed that first 1040 [under penalty of perjury] where it said 'Taxpayer Signature'. Obviously you weren't and can't be the Taxpayer as that is ALWAYS a legal fiction who can't sign, file or pay on its own just like the scare crow in the Wizard of Oz. IT DOESN'T HAVE A BRAIN. They needed to con you, the living man, to agree to the duty of signing, filing and paying. You were induced by fraud to enter into that agreement because they pawned off that legal fiction as being you.
In fact, their entire system is based on fraud. You don't have any lawful requirement to be licensed by the State to do anything---ANYTHING AT ALL WHATSOEVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I'll bet 90% of the people on this forum have a driver's license even though most are aware that Govco cannot turn a right into a license-able privilege.
The good part of all this subterfuge is that since you were induced by fraud [fraud vitiates all that it touches] you have the RIGHT, and more appropriately, the duty, to issue them an affidavit of mistake based on their fraud and return all licenses and a notice that 'this idiot hath regained his senses' and withdraws his election to be treated as the surety for their straw man Taxpayer, all the way back to the first incidence of mistake.
When I make posts regarding faith and I get a reply I expect that the one replying grasps the difference3 between the dead and the living..Your alive and under Christ not mans law for the strawman,,,you do not have to prove your not dead as youonly have to ask them to prove they have authority to have altered your name to a dead format... Some no matter how you point to scripture are just not inclined to read it respect it and honor it in their quest to keep their ego in tact submitting to mans code
i pointed folks to mans code so they can see that it also says in their own law only applicable to persons that faith exempts you...I have no need for a drivers licence I do not drive..I travel